From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:22:22 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/29/03 4:43:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
> writes:
>
> > The whole discussion of homosexuality on this list has focused on the
> > question
> > of whether or not homosexual activity can, to some extent, be accepted
> > within the
> > Christian church. At least that's what everybody else has been talking
> > about, though
> > with your obsession about Judaism maybe you haven't been. It's hard to
> > tell. Anyway,
> > that's the context in which my argument was presented. If Christians cannot
> > use OT
> > ideas of extermination of populations because they encourage reproductive
> > success then
> > they can't use the OT prohibition of homosexuality _on such grounds_.
> >
> > That's it, pure & simple. If your argument has in fact been, as it
> > seems, that
> > Christians cannot accept homosexuality on those grounds then it has in fact
> > been blown
> > out of the water. If that is not your argument then you need to be a lot
> > clearer in
> > what you say.
> >
> >
>
> Let's get out of communal religion. Let's stop talking reproduction.
> Homosexuality is not religious. The ideal Jesus taught us was self discipline. There
> is a reason for heterosexual couples to mate and that is procreation. To
> fulfill our destinies in the manner God intended. Homosexuality is an ALTERNATE life
> style, TANGENTIAL to the most basic of human imperatives - the only reason to
> be homoseuxal is because you like it - it has no function other than pleasure
> - harldy an exemplar of self discipline. hardly religious
> rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> In a message dated 7/29/03 4:43:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> The whole discussion of homosexuality on this list has
> focused on the question
> of whether or not homosexual activity can, to some extent,
> be accepted within the
> Christian church. At least that's what everybody else has
> been talking about, though
> with your obsession about Judaism maybe you haven't been.
> It's hard to tell. Anyway,
> that's the context in which my argument was presented. If
> Christians cannot use OT
> ideas of extermination of populations because they encourage
> reproductive success then
> they can't use the OT prohibition of homosexuality _on such
> grounds_.
>
> That's it, pure & simple. If your argument has in fact
> been, as it seems, that
> Christians cannot accept homosexuality on those grounds then
> it has in fact been blown
> out of the water. If that is not your argument then you
> need to be a lot clearer in
> what you say.
>
>
>
> Let's get out of communal religion. Let's stop talking reproduction.
> Homosexuality is not religious. The ideal Jesus taught us was self
> discipline. There is a reason for heterosexual couples to mate and
> that is procreation. To fulfill our destinies in the manner God
> intended. Homosexuality is an ALTERNATE life style, TANGENTIAL to the
> most basic of human imperatives - the only reason to be homoseuxal is
> because you like it - it has no function other than pleasure - harldy
> an exemplar of self discipline. hardly religious
As I have said numerous times, I am not arguing for homosexuality, though I do
think that the church needs to deal in a sensitive way with people who have a
non-volitional homosexual orientation. What I have been arguing here is simply that the
non-procreative aspect of homosexual activity, while not irrelevant to theological &
ethical issues, cannot in itself determine the church's theological or ethical position
or its pastoral practice. I doubt that it will be helpful for the 2 of us to debate the
matter further here.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:20:59 EDT